Gay Marriage Will Lead To 'Anarchy'

reply to post by Garfee

What "sick line" are you referring to?

Anyway, I don't deny that self-hatred can be a powerful emotion. We can only assume that there indeed are certain cases in which the "you are what you hate" concept is seen. But I assert that this is the exception; certainly not the rule.

Originally posted by AngryOne
reply to post by Garfee

 

What "sick line" are you referring to?

Anyway, I don't deny that self-hatred can be a powerful emotion. We can only assume that there indeed are certain cases in which the "you are what you hate" concept is seen. But I assert that this is the exception; certainly not the rule.

Any equating of homosexuality with paedophilia. As if I haven't been offended enough in my life time, by people with less of a clue than a rock, some still use that old argument as a last resort. If it wasn't your intention to imply this, I apologise.

I agree that not all those so vocally opposed to homosexuality are homosexual or bi-sexual themselves but it does make you wonder...

Originally posted by Garfee
Any equating of homosexuality with paedophilia. As if I haven't been offended enough in my life time, by people with less of a clue than a rock, some still use that old argument as a last resort. If it wasn't your intention to imply this, I apologise.

I agree that not all those so vocally opposed to homosexuality are homosexual or bi-sexual themselves but it does make you wonder...

I suggested nothing of the sort. I just brought that up in regards to the whole "you are what you hate" thing.

Again......

If homophobes generally have gay tendencies, then does that mean that people who dislike pedophiles are actually pedophiles themselves? This question isn't necessarily directed at you, it's just directed at anybody who still believes this nonsense. Really, I would like an answer from somebody......

Originally posted by AngryOne

Again......

If homophobes generally have gay tendencies, then does that mean that people who dislike pedophiles are actually pedophiles themselves? This question isn't necessarily directed at you, it's just directed at anybody who still believes this nonsense. Really, I would like an answer from somebody......

I think there is a great difference, firstly being gay is a pretty natural common occurrence and for the most part legal and perfectly acceptable (well, its getting there, but some people are dragging their feet a bit...). So, there's nothing wrong with fantasizing about that practice.
But your trying to push your argument to pedophilia, an illegal practice which is not acceptable under any circumstance, only the depraved minds of closet pedo's would go there.






Also, just a thankyou to all the support everyone! I've also thought more on the subject, and you know what, kids give you so many clues as to what they need, and you adjust your parenting a little to suit. My children have no female presence in their lives and this has made me (and happily so) very much more feminine and nurturing. I'm sure the single mum's out there find themselves putting up cubby houses, as for me, I've become awesome at sewing, braiding, decorating and makeups! :-D
Any time that is positive spent with children is what they all desire and need to grow.

reply to post by AngryOne


I appreciate your opinion. May I ask how your formed it and if you have taken the time to examine it to see if maybe you are wrong?

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

InfraRedMan,

based upon that answer...this is too much...

Bills Receiver Blames God for Dropped Pass - no, seriously

The Onion is coming to life.

CJ

LOL! How long must intelligent people endure this lunacy?

IRM

reply to post by Qumulys

I still don't consider this a decent explanation. I mean, I think that the whole "if you hate it, you are it" trick when it comes to homosexuality can be easily blown out of the water with the aforementioned argument. The fact that one of these orientations is largely considered acceptable while the other is spurned is simply not relevant.


reply to post by ColoradoJens

I came to believe what I believe by simply thinking about matters. I could be wrong about certain things.....but I doubt it.

Originally posted by NuroSlam

NEW YORK - Former New York Giants wide receiver David Tyree -- best known for making a famous catch against his helmet during Super Bowl XLII -- spoke out against gay marriage Wednesday, claiming it is the first step towards "anarchy." In an interview with anti-gay group the National Organization for Marriage, Tyree also said two men or two women were incapable of raising a child, TMZ reported.

www.myfoxny.com...
I couldn't agree more! Get government out of marriage and the idea of loving relationships. Anarchy in my time? I can hope.

Civilised man has no need to be governed, so where is the rest of the civilised?

If there is anarchy over gay weddings, then it'll be very nicely catered, perhaps with an ice sculpture and a string trio.

Seriously? We have much larger issues to concern ourselves with. Gays getting married is NOT the end of the world.
Obama as a second term president, might be.

I'm as conservative as Attila The Hun, but who gives a tinkers damn about who someone is sleeping with?

Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by laiguana

 

Homosexuality is not hurting anyone...It's not invading anyone's privacy or taking away anyone's rights.

Keep plugging that tired line if you want; it sounds fine on the surface, white-washes everything, and was said in a netshell for us to absorb. I wonder how many shades of reality away from the truth that statement actually is.

If you can't reply with a real argument why don't you bow out of the debate?

reply to post by Garfee


Since it seems I'm getting responses like this :

You have made it clear you wish to not allow the "positive right" of marriage to same sex couples, that is violating their personal "negative right" of liberty

NuroSlam

Despite already clearly covering this :

Each to their own, it doesn't bother me too much about the issue considering it's two consenting adults involved.(me)

... I'm already "bowed out" of the debate. I realize I'm not a news article to quote, or a copyrighted source, but reading comprehension would be nice to see.

Just to add another level of complexity to the discussion, lets say you agree that gay men or woman should not raise children, what about the gay man who lived his whole life as a "straight man" got married had kids and his wife dies, do you think his children should be removed from his home for the reason he is gay? put in a foster home to be treated like left over dinner?

Why not do it like in the UK. Take the word marriage out of the equation. Full civil partnership rights are given to same sex couples, however no religious imagery or songs can be used during a service and the service cannot be conducted in a church. It has to be at an official registry office or a place registered to perform such services such as a hotel or a country manor etc. The civil partnership gives the same rights as a marriage. Next of kin rights, inheritance rights, land rights, pension rights but it is not religiously approved in anyway. How can anyone still have a problem with this. It sidelines the argument that marriage is a spiritual union while promoting true equality to gay couples.

We are not asking for special rights. We are asking for the right to go to hospital with a partner and not have our opinions overturned by our partners hateful homophobic family when such need arises. That's not special, it's equal. You have never stood in a hospital and been told you can't go and see the man you love because his family have denied you access. You cannot comprehend how that feels! The Civil Partnerships Act has ended situations like that. Thats what we have fought for!!! That's why we march.

Originally posted by Gman1803
Why not do it like in the UK. Take the word marriage out of the equation.

Separate but Equal. Creating a second class citizen.

Marriage is the word being used in other countries/cities - - it needs to be universal.

You really think all gays in the UK are happy having it called Civil Union or Partnership? They are happy with the benefits. Expect the name change in the future.

Originally posted by Annee
Separate but Equal. Creating a second class citizen.

Marriage is the word being used in other countries/cities - - it needs to be universal.

You really think all gays in the UK are happy having it called Civil Union or Partnership? They are happy with the benefits. Expect the name change in the future.

I would imagine that by taking the term "marriage" out of it it removes the supposed religious context of it. There is nothing stopping these same people from also having a "church wedding" if they so choose, or referring to themselves as being married for that matter, it is a just a word after all.

If the government is going to put its nose into peoples private lives it has to be universally equal, and the only way that is possible is taking the religious aspect out of it.

Salvador Dali was in a legal civil union years before he married his wife in the Catholic Church

I'm trying to understand how two men or two women, getting married will descend society into anarchy?

Gay marriage can't hurt heterosexual marriage. I know plenty of people that are married, yet didn't have a religious aspect to their ceremony. They are still married.

Surely, divorce is a greater threat to the concept of marriage?

That other quote he made about kids can't be brought up correctly by same sex couples, well, he needs to live in the real world and maybe find out for himself how well kids can be raised by same sex couples.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
If the government is going to put its nose into peoples private lives it has to be universally equal, and the only way that is possible is taking the religious aspect out of it.

Absolutely!

Besides the "sanctity of marriage" is just pretty bogus and a lame excuse. The reality of marriage is - - women were property. Marriages were arranged for various reasons - - none of which were love. The concept of Love in marriage is maybe only a couple hundred years.

The Catholic church got involved in Marriage licenses for control and money. Nothing to do with Sanctity.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
Just to add another level of complexity to the discussion, lets say you agree that gay men or woman should not raise children, what about the gay man who lived his whole life as a "straight man" got married had kids and his wife dies, do you think his children should be removed from his home for the reason he is gay? put in a foster home to be treated like left over dinner?

edit on 19-6-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)

I'd love to hear what people have to say about this. Best idea thrown around this issue I've read.

You know, it is a true testament to this society's ills that a man who plays a game for a living, making obscene amounts of money, can say any hateful, small minded thing he likes and have every news media outlet cover these words as if they came from someone in a position of Authority.

This man's claim to fame is that he caught a ball on the side of his head.

Not one homosexual couple has to justify themselves to this punch line here, or anyone that used his homophobic rant to come on here and bash people who are different from themselves.

Originally posted by Elsek
"Tyree also said two men or two women were incapable of raising a child"

That is the most untrue thing I have ever heard.

You can force me to work with you and you can move next to me but you can't force me to accept you or like you or have my kids play with your kids, you can be snubbed, and ignored, or we can get violent as need arises, you will not dictate to me with politcal policy. period. I do not like or codone gay, queer or lezbo.

I don't know what more amazing...

That a Football player has an opinion on something other then a starting line up.

or

That I even took the time to even consider a responce to this thread.

Get back to you all when I decide.